Because why would the Obama Administration, if it had in fact denied the loan guarantee, not rush out with proof they'd declined the second application? That would be helpful to them, wouldn't it?

Oh, I suppose it might not be -- it could be that by the time of the second loan guarantee application analysts had finally finished their analysis and concluded it was a bad risk, and the first loans shouldn't have gone out, either.

Which is still something I'd like to know, then.

Very interesting that the government does not seem eager to tell us what became of this $469 million request.

If they're not saying, it seems likely that the answers would reflect rather badly on them.

Solyndra applied for that extra $469 million the same year it received the $535 million of ultimately wasted taxpayer money which is the subject of a current congressional investigation. According to the company’s SEC filings, that $535 million was only intended to cover Phase I of the construction of its “Fab 2″ solar panel manufacturing facility.

...

It’s unclear if the now-bankrupt and scandal-embroiled green energy company actually received a second loan. Department of Energy officials did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller’s request for comment, and the company’s SEC filing left the question open.

So $535 million on February 2, then this second request of $469 million on September 11 (both in 2009), this second request apparently always part of the plan.

Summing up, either:

1. Obama did extend this loan guarantee to Solyndra, in which case, whoa.

2. Obama did not extend this loan guarantee to Solyndra, even though apparently the plan was always to get a full billion plus in loan guarantees, in which case, it seems likely that a full analysis of the company's riskiness caused the OMB or DoE (or whoever) to finally say "No," in which case --not as big a whoa but still a whoa it's an even biggerwhoa, as it proves the administration caused this half-billion-plus loss due to their own pure-political-optics demand that the application be passed in time for a photo op.

If the second application was declined, due to the analysts having more time to properly vet the company, that proves that Obama's political pressure caused the loss of over a half billion taxpayer dollars.

So.

Which is it?

No one's saying.

I find that very interesting.

I Missed a Possibility: Possibility 3: They can't say because they don't know. They just don't keep track of every piddling little half-a-billion-dollar spending plan.

(And yes, if you're "loaning" money to a company that can't repay, it's not a loan, it's simply spending/wasting taxpayer money.)

If that's the case: whoa again.

I don't see too many good answers to this question.

Apparently the Obama Administration can't find any good answers either, which is why they aren't answering.

Do we not have a right to know what the hell happened to a second half-billion dollars?